You will find here news and information on Indiana (mostly) divorce, child support, child custody, visitation/parenting time matters, prenuptial agreements, and other family law matters. I also toss in some of my opinions. Please understand that this blog is not intended as legal advice for your particular case. Nothing about this blog makes me your lawyer.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

he Indiana General Assembly has a Bill pending that would change the presumption in custody cases to joint custody instead of sole custody in one parent. The digest reads as follows:

Joint legal custody. Establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of a child. Requires a court, if a party seeks to rebut the presumption, to consider: (1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody; (2) the ability of the parents to communicate and advance the child's welfare; and (3) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint legal custody. Repeals a provision containing language that is relocated within the Indiana Code. Repeals provisions providing that: (1) the mother of a child born out of wedlock has sole legal custody of the child; and (2) a custodial parent may determine the child's upbringing.

Phyllis Pond sponsored this Bill. Her biography is found here. I am not sure what she hopes to accomplish with these changes in the Bill. I sent her an e-mail asking her this question but have had no reply.

I have written before about joint custody and I noted in one post that Minnesota has gone to this type of presumption.

I want to discuss the proposed changes. The new law would add the following:

Sec. 2.4. If a party seeks to rebut the presumption under section 2.2 of this chapter that an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider: (1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody; (2) whether the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody are able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare; and (3) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody.

I see no definition of "fitness and suitability" and I feel safe in saying thatlitigation will focus on those three words. Lots of litigation. I see similar but somewhat lesser problems with "beneficial relationship" (I can see evidence easier to produce about the degree of benefit one each parent provides to the child.)

I do like (2). Therein lies my favorite defense to an unwanted joint custody. Forcing joint custody on parents who cannot communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare will not result in less litigation or a better atmosphere for the child.

I find more interest in what is excluded from the proposed law than what it adds:

Sec. 15. Indeterminingwhetheranawardofjointlegalcustody If a party seeks to rebut the presumption under section 13 of this chapter wouldbe that an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider: itamatterofprimary,butnotdeterminative,importancethatthepersonsawardedjointcustodyhaveagreedtoanawardofjointlegalcustody.Thecourtshallalsoconsider: (1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody; (2) whether the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody are willingand able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare; and(3)thewishesofthechild,withmoreconsiderationgiventothechild'swishesifthechildisatleastfourteen(14)yearsofage;(4) (3) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons who would be awarded joint legal custody.(5)whetherthepersonsawardedjointcustody:(A)liveincloseproximitytoeachother;and(B)plantocontinuetodoso;and(6)thenatureofthephysicalandemotionalenvironmentinthehomeofeachofthepersonsawardedjointcustody.

Again, I see "fitness and suitability" and I have made my comments on that already. I notice that the living in close proximity has been dropped as well as the wishes of the child. We have never had a pronouncement from our appellate courts about how much weight to give to the child's wishes and I think it does - sometimes - give rise to gamesmanship over those wishes. I find the removal of this provision as more of a curiosity.

On the other hand, getting rid of close proximity gives me a bit more of a pause. Joint custody gives an equal measure of control over the child's upbringing. I recognize that close proximity is relative but at some point I see distance being an obstacle to care of the child. How effective can a parent be if they live in California? It may be that Representative Pond does not recognize the numbers that are leaving Indiana for more prosperous areas of the country.

Generally speaking, my view has been that joint custody seems like a good idea but its reality is not so good. However, reading Representative Pond's proposal did give cause me to ask this question: Could it be that by creating a joint custody presumption will lessen custody fights?

I see it lessening custody fights only if the general public is made to understand what it means. I see nothing that indicates any proposal for educating the general public in the Bill. Considering how many of clients think Indiana presumes the mother should get custody, this is a real concern. Without the public knowing that there is presumption favoring joint custody then any desire to lessen custody fights will come to nothing.

It might be a good idea to see what the effect has been in other jurisdictions. I noted in an early post that Minnesota had a proposal for presuming joint custody. (There is another post here post e about Minnesota and joint custody.). I also have a post on Norway and joint custody that might lead us to making a more informed decision about this kind of change.

Perhaps some of my readers might have a different view about whether this would be a good change. If so, please be sure to leave a comment.

1 comment:

As a mom who is in the middle of a divorce and custody battle I agree with your comment about (2). Because I left my marriage after years of a controlling, verbal and emotion abuse that my kids witnessed for years my husband can only control me through our kids. He refuses to communicate with me and tries to dictate everything and the kids are suffering. We have been seeing a mediator which has not helped but the mediator seems to think there is nothing wrong with it and it's just another form of joint custody and we each would take care of the kids when we have them and not really communicate. Which raises concern about (6) being deleted. Unfortunately IN is a no fault state and even if I could prove the abuse it wouldn't matter. Over the last year of my battle I've found your blog very helpful when I have had questions, thank you.

About Me and My Practice

This blog exists for providing information and news about Indiana's laws on divorce and child support and child custody and parenting time and grandparent's rights. I also have tried to show off my law practice a bit at the same time. If you want to know even more about my law practice,just follow this link.

I began practicing law over twenty years ago and I am a solo practitioner. I am licensed to practice in all Indiana state and federal courts, but I do tend to limit my practice to those counties within a 100 mile radius. You can read my detailed background by following the profile links below.If you are looking to hire an attorney, please give me a call or send me an e-mail. My contact information is:

Want to Know More About Me

The Proverbial Legal Disclaimer

Please understand that this blog is not intended as legal advice for your particular case. Nothing about this blog makes me your lawyer. Nor can I answer your particular legal problems. If you have a legal problem, you need to hire an attorney.